MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410829664 · doi:10.1007/s40268-025-00511-y

Network Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological Therapies for Long-Term Prophylactic Treatment of Patients with Hereditary Angioedema

2025· review· en· W4410829664 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah N. Walsh, Meaghan Bartlett, Elizabeth M. Salvo‐Halloran, John Sears, Yinglei Li, Maebh Kelly, S. Gavata-Steiger, Chiara Nenci, Iris Jacobs, Ingo Pragst, Neelanjana Ray, Imtiaz A. Samjoo

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs in R&D · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsEVERSANA (Canada)
FundersCSL Behring
KeywordsHereditary angioedemaMedicineProphylactic treatmentTerm (time)Intensive care medicineAngioedemaMeta-analysisDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Several treatments for long-term prophylaxis (LTP) of hereditary angioedema (HAE) are in clinical use, such as garadacimab, lanadelumab, subcutaneous C1 esterase inhibitor (C1INH), and berotralstat. In the absence of head-to-head comparative evidence, indirect comparison methods are needed to compare LTP treatments in patients with HAE. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the comparative efficacy, safety, and impact on quality of life of LTP treatments for patients with HAE through NMAs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating LTP treatments in patients (at least 12 years old) with HAE (PROSPERO protocol #CRD42022359207). A network meta-analysis (NMA) feasibility assessment evaluated trial suitability and Bayesian NMAs were conducted for evaluable efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. RESULTS: The results of these NMAs show improved efficacy, QoL, and reduced rate of adverse events with garadacimab (200 mg once monthly), lanadelumab (300 mg every two or four weeks), subcutaneous C1INH (60 IU/kg twice weekly), and berotralstat (150 mg once daily) compared to placebo in the treatment of patients with HAE. For the primary outcome of time-normalized number of HAE attacks, garadacimab statistically significantly reduced the rate of attacks compared to lanadelumab Q4W and berotralstat. A similar statistically significant reduction was shown for HAE attacks treated with on-demand treatment. Garadacimab showed statistically significant reduction in the rate of moderate and/or severe HAE attacks compared to lanadelumab Q2W. Garadacimab also showed statistical improvements in change from baseline in AE-QoL total score as compared to berotralstat. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, garadacimab ranked as the most probable effective treatment among all comparators assessed, with lanadelumab Q2W or subcutaneous C1INH ranking second, across most outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs in R&DSame topicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and AngioedemaFrench-language works237,207